The challenges of autonomy and blossoming of decentralization
The challenges of autonomy and blossoming of decentralization
Adam Tyson, Leeds, UK
Ambivalence seems the most appropriate way to describe the
mixed emotions felt by observers of Indonesia's decentralization
program. This was clearly discernable after a casual visit to one
of Bandung's top political departments.
Faculty members knitted their brows and sighed from time to
time, fretting over the potential for disorder and instability
that decentralization brings, while at the same time harboring a
sense of hope for the future.
Hope is found in the potential for greater democracy as it is
transferred downwards, closer to the people, enhancing what
political scientists call representation, accountability,
transparency and participation. Fear is created by the potential
for conflict, territorial disintegration, and increasing
corruption, to name but a few.
For those that do not suffer from collective amnesia, the
painful memories of the crisis period from 1997 to 1998 lead to a
sensible desire to avoid social breakdown at almost all costs.
People of this persuasion may look upon decentralization (or
regional autonomy as it is commonly referred to in Indonesia)
with a skeptical eye, given the uncertainty that now surrounds
its implementation.
A plethora of contestations have resulted from the ambiguities
of the decentralization legislation, and politics has become even
more complicated as parties and groups jockey, lobby and
maneuver for influence and control.
Much of this volatility is caused by what the International
Crisis Group identifies as pemekaran (blossoming) whereby local
administrative and territorial boundaries are redefined and
redrawn, usually multiplying in number. Local, provincial and
national interest groups now seek to rally support for their
causes, meaning that fragmentation often replaces unity in the
new era of decentralization.
People align themselves based on ever smaller units of
interest, such as customary adat groups, religious affiliations,
ethnic ties, or kinship. Otherwise people rally behind
charismatic leadership from former traditional leaders such as
sultans or local heroes, those of the magnanimous genre. Indeed,
there seems to be little reason why an Indonesian pop idol could
not hold significant political sway if he or she was so inclined.
A host of new actors are joining the fray, with innovative
NGOs, aid agencies and donor governments catering their agendas
to fit the new trends in local politics, and lining up to fund
all kinds of projects in the name of democratic decentralization.
There are now appeals to indigenous rights, sustainable village
development, self-determining environmentally sound community-
driven local initiatives, and all kinds of long-winded mainstream
slogans that appear to be quite new and groundbreaking.
Rural activists are finding new support systems that would
have seemed impossible twenty years ago. Suddenly the impacts of
decentralization upon logging amongst the Dayaks of Central
Kalimantan are making hot topics for academics and finding their
ways into the executive summaries of developmental organizations.
Nothing appears beyond the scope of the activist or academic
community, with the lens focusing on such 'obscure' issues as
Bugis transmigration throughout Sulawesi; Minangkabau politics
and identity in West Sumatra; the quest for self-determination in
Riau province; the symbolism of traditional dress amongst adat
communities in Northern Lombok, and so on.
Without the commanding centralism of the New Order to bind
this vast archipelago, a new formula for reconciling all these
competing interests will have to be applied. Perhaps this can be
related to the recent commentaries written about the sixtieth
anniversary of Merdeka (Independence) whereby the virtues of
nation-building, pluralism and tolerance were frequently
espoused.
The need to deal with such issues reflects the coming-of-age
that is inevitable after six decades of independence, although
there are still significant obstacles to overcome. The
aforementioned diversity of interests and variety of means to
galvanize support for local causes has been highlighted by
decentralization, and hints at the enormity of the task at hand.
Therefore the search for some coherence will be ongoing and
will surely cause Indonesia's academic community some more
awkward and sleepless nights. Pragmatists would probably argue
that the real substance is in the actualization of reforms and
the improvement of local livelihoods. On this front there are
great regional discrepancies and much to be improved.
The writer is a lecturer at University of Leeds, United
Kingdom.